woman preaachers

This is a prime example of how the construct works....

The Farmer's name is Joe and he lives on 100 acres, the corn gets planted, the weeds get brush hogged, the fertilizer gets spread on the lower 20, the cows get watered etc......

ALL the bolded is applicable unto the FARMER named JOE who lives on 100 acres.......HE is the one who plants the corn, brush hogs the weeds, spreads the fertilizer and waters the cows....

God is SPECIFIC and MISSES nothing....if a woman was to be considered in verses 2-7 concerning the OFFICE of a Bishop/Pastor the distinction would have been made by the inclusion of a comment, statement, or direct reference to a woman.....

It is not that difficult to understand and this is not to say a woman cannot witness, minister the word to women and children etc....it is the OFFICE we are discussing and By qualification there is no permission found in Timothy or Titus and the ONLY people I have seen in my 52 years argue this are women and men in religions that allow all sorts of error and or a twist on the word of God.... (NOT mouthing or accusing anyone) just stating a fact.

Wrong......ONE who desires the office ---->HUSBAND of ONE wife (sets stage and qualifies it as a MAN) the following 5 verses are applicable unto MEN....not women no matter how many women argue that a woman can be included.....and your still missing the forest because of the trees....God is specific....if a WOMAN would be considered for verses 3 thru 7 it would have said...

The Husband of ONE wife or the Wife of One husband <---that is how specific God is....he misses NOTHING and qualifies everything

Actually, it does NOT say that in the Greek!

"Τότε ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ· Εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἐλθεῖν, ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι" Matt 16:24

"Ἔλεγεν δὲ πρὸς πάντας· Εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἔρχεσθαι, ἀρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ [b]καθ’ ἡμέραν, καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι." Luke 9:23


The little word "'tis" τις is an indefinite adjective, which does not mean "man" at all! It means "someone, something, a certain one, a certain things, anyone, anything." No mention of gender at all. And just because certain translators have undertaken to make the Bible all about males, doesn't make that right. There actually are many ways to properly translate this word, if you let go of presuppositional gender bias, and actually catch the true meaning, which includes the many women who followed Jesus.

And considering the culture of Jesus' day was completely gender biased, and both Matthew and Luke captured the meaning of Jesus words, without making it about men only, that is a very strong statement that women are definitely included, because Jesus wanted them to be included.

Now, as far as the autou αὐτοῦ, I would also say this is accurate. Because I have not heard any stories of women being crucified and literally having to carry a physical cross. But, the fact remains that Jesus refers to "anyone" and then to keep it singular, he must use autou. But, the word "man" or aner, never appears in any of these records of Jesus telling people that if they want to follow him, they have a lot of hard work to do.

Here is how the NIV translates it.

"Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me." Luke 9:23 NIV.

Probably NLT is accurate with TIS, but then goes to 2nd person plural (?) to keep it about "anyone."

"Then he said to the crowd, “If any of you wants to be my follower, you must give up your own way, take up your cross daily, and follow me." Luke 9:23 NLT

The fact is, you cannot simply translate directly from Greek to English. There are always going to be compromises. However, turning an indefinite adjective into "man," is a a bit too far from the meaning the Holy Spirit and thence the human authors meant to convey.

Yes. Correct. In that place it is referring to a man who is to be an overseer not practicing polygamy.
But it is not correct that the entire passage refers only to husbands, or men.
As someone pointed out earlier, if we are to be that legalistic, there may be NO single or unwed overseers.

I agree with this....I.E. that ANYONE can be a disciple (learner) of Christ both men and women....

Correct. It does not say that in greek. It says that in old translations in English.

It is not about legalism...and or taking the statement about husband of one wife to the far left to mean that one would have to be married to pastor....I do not believe that either....Timothy was a young pastor at Ephesus and Paul even writes concerning the fact that he was not to allow anyone to despise his youth.....the underlined is incorrect.....

I disagree that it is incorrect.

Obviously..........

Quite a few denominational groups take exactly this approach. Of course, if you challenge them on other passages, such as "I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer", suddenly they start preaching "grace".

It probably says "the one".

Sometimes you do not disagree respectfully. It is an insult to say so? Dino is not the only one who has noted that you don't always disagree respectfully.

People do seem to get rather heated over this whole subject don’t they. Lol

In my opinion neither man or woman should “preach” unless they
are called to/are inspired by God.

No one ever seems to mention that.

I’ve seen unschooled, unskilled people not very good at communicating,
gave a simple word and the Holy Spirit has just fallen on a room and convicted
people.

I’ve seen highly educated people preach and bore me to tears!

Its all about God, whoever is doing the preaching. Also don’t forget the following.


1 Corinthians 1:27-29 NKJV
[27] But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; [28] and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, [29] that no flesh should glory in His presence.

Post # 82 is written by Angela.

Do you know Greek or do you build your view on what Angela said?

Do not take it personally, I just want to know if I should dispute personally with Angela or if I can talk about Greek with you, too.

So what and you just supported him using an insult to disagree with me in the first place....partial in your judgment <--James speaks to this....

I do not take it personally or take offense.
No, I do not know greek. I have read many scholarly papers on the greek over the past few months in which disputed passages and disputed translations are debated and discussed and where greek is explained. But no, I have not been taught greek. So I guess you could say I have only delved into greek in a roundabout way - because I was interested in first, what people who knew greek and had studied it for years thought of disputed passages/passages that may have been added. But this, of course, led to finding some papers that weren't dealing with disputed/added passages but rather with undisputed passages that no one thought were added, yet in which the greek was thought to have not been sufficiently (or meticulously enough) rendered in the English language.

It is a bit like reading a brief history of scientific experimentation (a fascinating read if you ever find time!) in which a scientist came up with a conclusion that was accepted for years until another scientist came along and ran the same experiment but got different results, and then discovered there was a premise or prejudice or overlooked tainting possibility that the first man didn't see or take note of, which skewed the results. That's similar to what has occurred in the matter we are discussing.

And I will tell you this, if one began to hold some of the discussions with greek scholars that go on in here, where the English language and how it is constructed and works, becomes the argument for what the original greek means, they would think it imbecilic and would not bother their time with someone who could not grasp that how English works has nothing to do with how greek works. And similarly, how Spanish works and is constructed has nothing to do with how English works and is constructed.

When dealing with translational issues, it is the language being translated from that is of concern and that answers if something was translated properly. There may, in course of time, come a problem with how to translate something into a language that doesn't have a certain construct component that would allow a facile rendering (or for which the word does not have a certain counterpart in the second language), but that's not really the issue here. The issue is more along the lines of a premise, prejudice or overlooked tainting possibility.

If someone approaches you with the thought that you are sometimes not very respectful when you disagree, it doesn't mean they are trying to insult you. It could be that they are attempting to reason with you.

And your slightly crude jesting about "ball" with the subtle nuance/put down that you were speaking to women , did not offend me but it was relating to anatomy and could be thought offensive to some others. It was not completely respectful but I personally have much more concern with your bitter tongue at times. And that isn't an insult, it's just a concern for you and others that you are speaking with.

I don't read Greek either, but I believe it was a cultural thing. As it were at the time socially unacceptable for women to be leaders or teachers of men. When men failed as in the book of Judges, women took up the mantle

I see what you are trying to convey.
I'm not sure that Paul, who knew there was now no more male or female, had a cultural problem, but you can be assured that there were some men present who did.

The cultural problem/prejudice appears to be not with Paul, but with translators many years later, at the time of translation into English.